I need help identifying when a conditional keyword indicator is expressing a conditional relationship, and when they are not.
For example, I thought #5 in this question set and #1 in the last one were trick questions, and that there were no conditional relationships present despite the use of a conditional keyword indicator.
Can someone help me discern this better so I don't run into this issue again?
Not sure what lies ahead in the lessons, but I think seeing examples of statements that contain keyword indicators, but are not actually expressing a conditional relationship, would be super helpful!
@Cee🦋 "If I only buy 1 thing, it will be a new computer."
Notice how the word "only" here isn't saying that something is required. It's best interpreted as a modifier of "buy 1 thing". IF I buy one thing, and buy nothing else, then it'll a new computer. This is an example of not thinking about "Only" as a necessary condition indicator.
I understand this general concept, but I keep messing up in in regard to the parentheses. Does anybody else keep making the same errors? Are these costly mistakes? If anybody has a trick to help w/ this please let me know!
@JiggityJack5 I literally wasn't even paying attention to the parentheses until I read this comment. Are they to differentiate necessary vs. sufficient? I don't remember that in the lessons
@JiggityJack5 @everleez Not sure how to best describe it, but you know how in math when you have numbers in parentheses, and there's a negative sign outside the parentheses? You then have to distribute the negative sign to everything inside the parentheses-- think of using parentheses for these lawgic negations as a way to ensure that all the terms within the parentheses get negated. This is important for conditions containing more than one clause
Example:
If I ate --> I went to sleep and had a dream)
To negate this, it would be:
/(I went to sleep and had a dream) --> /I ate.
Including the parentheses in the contraposed term on the left is important because if not, it could be easily misinterpreted as "I did not go to sleep and I had a dream" as opposed to "I did not go to sleep and I did not have a dream).
The negation above is really supposed to be: /(I went to sleep or I had a dream). But you'll learn more about that in a future lesson.
I am still having trouble understanding sufficient and necessary conditions for some reason but I still got 5/5. Nevertheless, I still feel like I do not fully get it
I'm an advanced student just reviewing the core curriculum. Apparently, I've been misrepresenting what "ALWAYS" means the entire time I've studied. I thought it was a sufficient condition indicator, turns out it's a necessary condition indicator.
Always = necessary
(whatever follows "always" is the necessary condition)
5/5 - I have tried to understand this concept through another LSAT prep course and had difficulty understanding sufficient vs. necessity. The way 7sage breaks this down has been a huge "Aha" moment!
I highly recommend that if you do not have the first two groups memorized and do not understand sufficient and necessary to not move forward. Talking from personal experience! :)
5/5, it's all starting to click now! I just needed to keep practicing and drawing examples.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!
For anyone stuck on these:
Write out all the indicator words and place them in a necessary and sufficient column.
Draw out the circles for necessary and sufficient.
Enjoy.
I was having trouble especially with the questions, but once I drew them out, I understood it completely. Now I can visualize these problems in my head.
Keep drawing each problem out and placing the necessary and sufficient conditions in each circle.
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
91 comments
5/5!! Feeling good!
5/5!! Woo
#helpp
I need help identifying when a conditional keyword indicator is expressing a conditional relationship, and when they are not.
For example, I thought #5 in this question set and #1 in the last one were trick questions, and that there were no conditional relationships present despite the use of a conditional keyword indicator.
Can someone help me discern this better so I don't run into this issue again?
Not sure what lies ahead in the lessons, but I think seeing examples of statements that contain keyword indicators, but are not actually expressing a conditional relationship, would be super helpful!
@Cee🦋 "If I only buy 1 thing, it will be a new computer."
Notice how the word "only" here isn't saying that something is required. It's best interpreted as a modifier of "buy 1 thing". IF I buy one thing, and buy nothing else, then it'll a new computer. This is an example of not thinking about "Only" as a necessary condition indicator.
I understand this general concept, but I keep messing up in in regard to the parentheses. Does anybody else keep making the same errors? Are these costly mistakes? If anybody has a trick to help w/ this please let me know!
@JiggityJack5 I literally wasn't even paying attention to the parentheses until I read this comment. Are they to differentiate necessary vs. sufficient? I don't remember that in the lessons
@JiggityJack5 @everleez Not sure how to best describe it, but you know how in math when you have numbers in parentheses, and there's a negative sign outside the parentheses? You then have to distribute the negative sign to everything inside the parentheses-- think of using parentheses for these lawgic negations as a way to ensure that all the terms within the parentheses get negated. This is important for conditions containing more than one clause
Example:
If I ate --> I went to sleep and had a dream)
To negate this, it would be:
/(I went to sleep and had a dream) --> /I ate.
Including the parentheses in the contraposed term on the left is important because if not, it could be easily misinterpreted as "I did not go to sleep and I had a dream" as opposed to "I did not go to sleep and I did not have a dream).
The negation above is really supposed to be: /(I went to sleep or I had a dream). But you'll learn more about that in a future lesson.
I really hope that gave you some clarity :))
@Cee🦋 omg this did it for me thank you!
@Cee🦋 But isn't the / the symbol that indicates "not"?
I am still having trouble understanding sufficient and necessary conditions for some reason but I still got 5/5. Nevertheless, I still feel like I do not fully get it
Day 3 of sufficient and necessary conditions and its starting to make sense! Glad I stuck with it :)
I made flash cards to help memorize group 1-4 conditional indicators, thought I’d share in case it would be helpful to anyone else. I’m redoing this course after getting through most of it and taking the lsat and not doing as well as I hoped. Looking back I realize how important it is to know these. https://quizlet.com/1153975729/lsat-7sage-conditional-indicators-to-share-flash-cards/?i=71yhg9&x=1jqY
I'm an advanced student just reviewing the core curriculum. Apparently, I've been misrepresenting what "ALWAYS" means the entire time I've studied. I thought it was a sufficient condition indicator, turns out it's a necessary condition indicator.
Always = necessary
(whatever follows "always" is the necessary condition)
After having a breakdown last night, it's finally starting to make sense!
First 5/5 - stick with it guys!!!
Is it better to reduce the complexity of symbols when using lawgic? For example, question 5, I wrote:
Conflict: RB and DG -(arrow sign)- Main issue: FSC
Would it slow me down in the test if i wrote it this way instead of a more concise way? I have also made other symbols that are wordier than this too
I got 5/5, hooray!
5/5 - I have tried to understand this concept through another LSAT prep course and had difficulty understanding sufficient vs. necessity. The way 7sage breaks this down has been a huge "Aha" moment!
feeling pretty good about this! 5/5!
I highly recommend that if you do not have the first two groups memorized and do not understand sufficient and necessary to not move forward. Talking from personal experience! :)
@EdithM revisiting this after taking a few PTs and wowwwwwwwwwwwwww I needed this lol
For me to quite grasp this I had to remind myself constantly of the words that were in group one and in group two.
Glad it finally clicked for all of us!
5 right, finally!
5/5 LETS GO
5/5 finally i was waiting to be able to say this
@VanillaCat I am finding myself in the same position but yes ma'am finally!
5/5, it's all starting to click now! I just needed to keep practicing and drawing examples.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!
For anyone stuck on these:
Write out all the indicator words and place them in a necessary and sufficient column.
Draw out the circles for necessary and sufficient.
Enjoy.
I was having trouble especially with the questions, but once I drew them out, I understood it completely. Now I can visualize these problems in my head.
Keep drawing each problem out and placing the necessary and sufficient conditions in each circle.
You will thank me later.
Dear me an hour ago, please don't freak out. It starts to make sense.
was this one way easier than the last ones or did we just get better?
@yam That's a great sign! Keep at it wherever you are at now :D
Finally! 5/5 :DDDD
Finally a 5/5!!
5/5!!
I always get 5/5 on these and the real LSAT questions I don't..
@MorganSmith LMAO FR FR